MINUTES
Faculty Senate Academic Affairs
May 2, 2006, 3:30 p.m.
K-State Union, Room 204
Present: Couvelha, Dodd, Fairchild, Higgins, Martin, Stewart, Trussell
Absent: Collins, Erickson, Lehew, Sachs, Stokes, Thompson
Visitors: Jackie Spears and Monty Nielsen
1. Alice Trussell, Chair, call the meeting to order at 3:35 p.m.
2. The April 18, 2006 minutes were approved as amended.
3. Announcements
●Fairchild brought up the university-wide honors program. He expressed concern about the program and the
fact that no sufficient curriculum is available. Trussell reported that his colleagues on campus have also
expressed similar concerns.
●New faculty senator orientation as well as the faculty senate meeting will be May 9th.
4. Investigation and Adjudication Procedures for Honor System – Jackie Spears – Attachment 1
Spears gave some background information on the Honor System. It was developed in the late 1990s and its
by-laws and constitution had approval from Faculty Senate. It came to light last year that the wording in the
university handbook, student handbook, and on the website was different. Senator Spears, as president of
Faculty Senate at the time, was requested to review this issue. She formed an ad hoc committee that included
members of Faculty Senate, Student Senate, the Honor Council and Honor System staff. They worked
together to amend the constitution so the by-laws would be converted to a set of investigation and
adjudication procedures. These would be reviewed by Faculty Senate every five years beginning in 2005 with
the provision that interim changes could be made. The ad hoc committee reconvened this past semester to
make other modifications to the constitution.
The document presented at this meeting reflects the changes made by the ad hoc committee that now need
Faculty Senate approval. These changes include wording to indicate the Provost will also be involved in the
approval process of changes to the Honor System constitution; under section B. Reporting Honor Pledge
Violations, it is strongly urging faculty to report honor pledge violations, however, it is not mandatory; also
there are changes involving the confidentiality during proceedings of a hearing as well as the appeals process.
Trussell reported that Gunile DeVault, Registrar’s office, voiced concern that a student could possibly drop a
class for which they’re being accused of an honor violation and it would never be noted on their record. It
was suggested that a student’s account could be frozen if an honor system violation is brought against them.
A lengthy discussion continued on freezing a student’s account or freezing it in the sense that the student
would have to remain in the course until a decision was made. It was noted this course of action could have a
major affect on a student’s academic future and also a student may not wish to continue in the course once a
decision has been made. Dodd offered several editorial suggestions which Spears will take back with her.
Committee members decided no action should be taken on this item today, but that the issues highlighted
should be discussed with David Allen, Director of the Honor System Director, first. Spears will visit with
him and hopefully bring this document back for a vote at our next meeting on May 16th.
5. Course and Curriculum Changes - none
6. Committee Reports
A. University Library Committee – Alice Trussell
The Library committee recently met with Provost Nellis. They are trying to get a financial
commitment from him to make sure the library has the necessary resources to function properly.
B. Committee on Academic Policy and Procedures (CAPP) – Alice Trussell
1
C.
D.
E.
F.
Their next meeting will be May 10th.
Student Senate – Gavin Couvelha
Student Senate had their last meeting this past Thursday and they will start back up in the fall
semester. One item of business they will be working on over the summer is structuring and providing
a mission to their newly formed University Relations committee, which was a combining of two
different student senate committees.
Laser Steering Committee – Robert Stokes (Nielsen)
Nielsen reported that the committee met this month. The K-State LASER project is moving to Oracle
People Soft Campus Solutions. Sometime between May 15th and June 30th a group of consultants will
be coming to meet with functional personnel on campus and they will then make recommendations
regarding several items including resources needed to go live with this system.
University General Education Council – Judy Collins
No report.
General Education committee – Melody Lehew
No report.
7. Election of Academic Affairs Committee Chair
A nomination was previously made for Fred Fairchild to chair the Academic Affairs committee for 20062007. A motion was made by Dodd and seconded by Stewart to close nominations. Motion passed. Fred
Fairchild was voted as the new Chair of Academic Affairs for 2006-2007.
8. For the good of the university
Trussell commended all committee members for their hard work during this academic year and gave a brief
review of all the items Academic Affairs has had input on over the year. The first day attendance policy was
passed, Academic Definitions were passed, changes to Graduation Scholastic Honors were passed, an
amended enrollment cap was passed, the provost created a committee to review general education at K-State
in which Melody Lehew has been a volunteer, the university assessment survey committee completed their
work and turned their report and revised surveys in to the Provost, faculty rights in the classroom were
discussed and the provost reaffirmed the integrity of the status of the faculty member and he will continue to
work to insure that information about faculty resources are fully communicated to all faculty members and
GTA’s, the academic climate in the student union was addressed and are continuing to be worked on, both the
Honor System and University Honors Program have been discussed, the LASER project has been given
support by the Academic Affairs committee and a pre-requisite fast track form was created to help with this
endeavor, the policy on certificate programs has been passed and will be voted on at our next faculty senate
meeting, also the approval, routing and notification committee has been formed. Only one more member
from classified personnel is needed. Members of the committee are as follows: Kelli Cox as Chair, Charlotte
Pfaff, Karen Pence, Carol Shanklin, and Loren Wilson. The committee has not convened yet for its first
meeting, but a letter has been sent out to members giving them their charge. They will revise, update and
replace the existing policy; they will examine the option for a tiered approach to processing changes
according to complexity; they will design web-based forms through which information can be entered; they
will create a flow chart illustrating all steps that are required to complete a process; and they will ensure all
procedures will meet requirements set forth in the Kansas Board of Regents Policy and Procedures manual.
Stewart, on behalf of the committee, sincerely thanked Trussell for her dedication in leading the Academic
Affairs committee this year.
9. The meeting was adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
2
Attachment 1
Honor System
Proposed Investigation and Adjudication Procedures
Background
At its June 14, 2005 meeting Faculty Senate approved changes to Article X of the Honor System
Constitution, changing the title “BYLAW REVISIONS” to “INVESTIGATION AND
ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES” and setting forth a process by which these procedures would be
reviewed at five year intervals beginning in 2005.
During the past semester an ad hoc committee convened by Past President Spears has been working to
convert the bylaws to a set of investigation and adjudication procedures. The committee consisted of
representatives from Faculty Senate, Student Senate, and the Honor Council as well as Honor System
staff. Under the old Honor System Constitution, changes to the bylaws needed to be approved only by
the Honor Council. Helene Marcoux, Associate Director of the Honor System, compiled a document
detailing the changes made to the bylaws since 1999. However, it was not a simple matter to move from
the format used in the bylaws to a format that would be user friendly. Consequently, the decision was
made to start with a fresh document, incorporate as much of the bylaws that still applied, and update the
remaining material to reflect current practice.
This document is being considered by the Honor Council and will eventually need to be approved by
both Student Senate and Faculty Senate.
Proposed Action
We are looking for Faculty Senate approval of the proposed “Investigation and Adjudication
Procedures.” Upon approval by both Faculty Senate and Student Senate, this document will be posted to
the Honor System website. Changes can be made by a 2/3 vote of the Honor Council and approval by
the Provost. These changes will be incorporated into the annual report prepared by the Honor System
staff and submitted to Faculty Senate every fall. In 2010 and at subsequent five-year intervals thereafter,
interim changes made to the document are to be approved by Faculty Senate and Student Senate.
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
Attachment 1, continued
HONOR SYSTEM
INVESTIGATION AND ADJUDICATION PROCEDURES
(Formerly Honor System Bylaws)
Kansas State University has an Honor System based on personal integrity, which is presumed to
be sufficient assurance in academic matters that one's work is performed honestly and without
unauthorized assistance. All full and part-time students enrolled in undergraduate and graduate
courses on-campus, off-campus, and via distance learning, by registration in those courses,
acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Honor System.
A.
Purpose
The Investigation and Adjudication Procedures have been developed for the purpose of administering
the Kansas State University Honor System. As set out in Article X of the Honor System Constitution,
the Investigation and Adjudication Procedures were approved by the Honor Council, Student Senate,
and Faculty Senate in 2006 and are subsequently subject to periodic review by those three governance
bodies at 5 year intervals beginning in 2010. Interim revisions to the Investigation and Adjudication
Procedures may be made upon approval by a 2/3 vote of the Honor Council and upon approval by the
Provost. The Investigation and Adjudication Procedures must be posted at the Honor System website
(http://www.k-state.edu/honor) and updated regularly.
B.
Reporting Honor Pledge Violations
Faculty and students report violations of the Honor Pledge to the Honor System Director by filling out
the Honor System Violation Report form available at http://www.kstate.edu/honor/faculty/reportform.html. When the report is made by a student, the Director will
consult with the faculty member who is the instructor of the course about filing an Honor Pledge
Violation Report.
Faculty members are urged to report the alleged violation to the Office of the Honor System when:
a.
or
b.
the faculty member alleges a violation and imposes an academic sanction, (An
academic sanction is any action that would lower a student’s grade on an assignment.)
the faculty member alleges a violation and requests an investigation. The
case investigation concludes once a decision has been made as to whether there is
sufficient information to proceed to the adjudication stage.
Faculty members who allege an Honor Pledge violation need not report an alleged violation to the
Office of the Honor System when:
a.
or
b.
or
c.
a faculty member alleges a violation and issues a warning but imposes no academic
sanction;
a faculty member alleges a violation, issues a warning, provides the
student an opportunity to correct the transgression, but imposes no academic sanction;
a faculty member alleges a violation, issues a warning, provides an
4
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
opportunity for the student to redo the assignment or take the exam again, but imposes
no academic sanction.
Honor Pledge Violation reports shall be submitted to the Honor System Director within twenty (20)
class days of the violation or of the discovery of the violation. In certain situations, it is acceptable for
a verbal notification to be given within the notification period. This situation might occur when a
faculty member is conducting an internal investigation. A written report must follow the verbal report
within a reasonable amount of time.
Faculty members have two options for filing an Honor Pledge Violation Report. Option One allows the
faculty member to conduct her/his own investigation and identify the specific sanction for the
violation. In this situation, Alleged Violators may contest only the allegation. If they do so, the case is
turned over to the Honor System for investigation and adjudication. Option Two allows the faculty
member to turn the case directly over to the Honor System for investigation and adjudication. The
faculty member may recommend a sanction. Alleged Violators may contest the allegation and propose
an alternate sanction during the adjudication phase, but the Honor System Hearing Panel makes the
final determination of the sanction.
Once a report has been filed by the faculty member, hereafter referred to as the Faculty Reporter, the
Director notifies the Alleged Violator(s) of the allegation, of the right to review the Violation report,
and of the right to contest the allegation. The Faculty Reporter and the Alleged Violator are
encouraged to resolve the issue prior to proceeding to the investigation process. If the issue is resolved
to the satisfaction of the Alleged Violator and the Faculty Reporter, a report of the agreed upon
resolution is filed with the Office of the Honor System. If the matter is not resolved to the satisfaction
of both the Faculty Reporter and the Alleged Violator, the Director initiates a case investigation.
C.
Investigating Honor Pledge Violations
When the Director initiates a case investigation, the Associate Director appoints a member of the
Honor Council or the Honesty & Integrity Peer Educators (HIPE) to serve as an Advisor to the Alleged
Violator during the investigation and adjudication process, if the violation proceeds to adjudication.
The Alleged Violator may at any time appoint someone else to serve as his/her Advisor, by notifying
the Director
The Faculty Reporter may, in consultation with the Director, withdraw the allegation at any time
during the investigation process. Such withdrawal will cause the investigation to be terminated. In the
event that a report is withdrawn, the Director shall ensure that all documentation is sealed and retained
in the Office of the Honor System. .
The Director appoints two members of the Honor Council (one faculty and one student) to serve as
Case Investigators. If the Alleged Violator is a graduate student, the student Case Investigator is a
graduate student and the faculty Case Investigator is a member of the Graduate Faculty.
The Director arranges for the Case Investigators to meet separately with the Faculty Reporter and the
Alleged Violator to review the Violation Report and other relevant information to determine if it
appears an Honor Pledge violation has occurred. If needed, the Director arranges a meeting between
the Case Investigators and any witness(es) as part of the investigative process.
During the course of the investigation the Alleged Violator is advised not to contact the Faculty
Reporter to discuss aspects of the case. In the same manner, the Faculty Reporter is advised not to
discuss the case with the Alleged Violator. Normal academic contact is permitted, however. In the
event that the Director feels the need to protect the Faculty Reporter, Alleged Violator, or any
5
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
witnesses involved in the investigation, the Director may take appropriate steps to protect the integrity
of the process.
The Case Investigators submit a report to the Director that concludes whether there IS or IS NOT
sufficient information to proceed to an adjudication hearing. If the Case Investigators conclude that
there IS NOT sufficient information to proceed to a hearing, the Director notifies the Alleged Violator
and the Faculty Reporter that no further action will be taken. The records are sealed and retained in the
Office of the Honor System. If the Case Investigators conclude that there IS sufficient information to
proceed to a hearing, the Director informs the Alleged Violator and the Faculty Reporter and appoints
an Honor Council Hearing Panel.
D. Adjudicating Honor Pledge Violations
When an Honor Pledge violation has proceeded to the adjudication stage, the Director appoints a panel
of six members drawn from the membership of the Honor Council. Each panel consists of five voting
members and one non-voting chairperson. If the Alleged Violator is a graduate student, student
members of the hearing panel are graduate students and faculty members are members of the Graduate
Faculty. The Director appoints the chair, alternating in successive cases between a faculty member and
a student member of the Honor Council. Voting membership of hearing panels consists of three
students and two faculty members.
Hearing panels are normally convened within ten class days of the conclusion of the investigation.
During the summer as well as January, May and August Intersessions, the Director may postpone
Honor Council hearings until the beginning of the subsequent fall or spring semester. Those notified of
the date, time, and place of the hearing are the Alleged Violator and the HIPE Advisor, the Faculty
Reporter, the Case Investigators, and any witnesses.
In preparation for the hearing, the Director prepares copies of all necessary documentation required by
the Hearing Panelists, Faculty Reporter, and/or Alleged Violator. A copy of the Case Investigation
Report and supporting documentation will be made available to the Alleged Violator and Faculty
Reporter at least three (3) class days prior to the hearing date. The Alleged Violator will sign a record
of notification acknowledging that he/she received the information and will honor expectations of
confidentiality.
Alleged violations filed under this policy are confidential and should not be disclosed to anyone who
does not have a need to know. The University cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality because the
University is obligated to investigate complaints. Supervisors and administrators are obligated to keep
complaints confidential and protect the privacy of all parties to the extent possible consistent with
preventing future acts of academic dishonesty, providing a remedy to persons injured and allowing
Alleged Violators to reply to a complaint if any disciplinary action is anticipated. Alleged Violators as
well as student witnesses are similarly bound by this expectation of confidentiality. Complaint
information may be disclosed to state or federal anti-discrimination agencies for investigations and
during litigation.
At the hearing, the Alleged Violator represents himself/herself. During the hearing, the Alleged
Violator may consult as necessary with his/her Advisor. Voluntary failure by the Alleged Violator to
appear before the Hearing Panel neither halts nor interrupts the proceedings.
The Director prepares the hearing panel script to be followed during the hearing. The script includes a
specific sequence for introducing information by each of the involved parties. The Faculty Reporter,
Alleged Violator, and Case Investigators are to inform the Director of any witnesses to be introduced
6
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
during the hearing at least 3 class days prior to the scheduled hearing. The script is read by the Hearing
Panel Chair.
The Hearing Panel Chair accepts for consideration all information that reasonable persons would
accept as having evidentiary value during hearing panel proceedings. Character witnesses and personal
references are not permitted. Formal rules of evidence are not applied.
Whether an Honor Pledge Violation occurred is determined by a simple majority of the five voting
members on the Hearing Panel.
The decision of the Honor Council Hearing Panel is reported to the Director, who then notifies in
writing the Alleged Violator, Faculty Reporter, the Faculty Reporter’s Department Chair or Head, and
(in the event there is a sanction of XF) the Dean of the Faculty Reporter’s and Violator’s College of
the Hearing Panel’s decision. In a case involving a graduate student the Director will notify the above
individuals as well as the Dean of the Graduate School and the student’s Graduate Program
Coordinator. If the hearing Panel determines that a violation of the Honor Pledge occurred, it imposes
or upholds the appropriate sanction.
All hearings are recorded and kept as part of the permanent record of the adjudication procedures.
Records are confidential and subject to applicable privacy laws. Records are made available to
authorized parties upon the determination of the Director.
E.
Sanctions
The standard sanction for an Honor Pledge violation shall be the assignment of an XF on the student’s
transcript. The XF denotes failure in the course due to academic dishonesty – an Honor Pledge
violation. If a sanction includes an XF, the Director shall contact the Registrar’s office and authorize
the grade of XF when:
•
•
•
the Violator does not contest the allegation, or
the case has been adjudicated, the hearing panel has issued a sanction, and the Violator chooses
not to appeal the Hearing Panel’s decision, or
the time period for contesting the violation has expired and the Violator has failed to contact
the Director.
When the appeals process is initiated immediately following the hearing, the Director shall postpone
the grade change until such time as the appeals process is resolved.
If a sanction includes the requirement that the Violator complete the Development and Integrity
course, described at the Honor System web site <ksu.edu/honor>, the Faculty Reporter records an
Incomplete for the course grade. If the Violator fails to successfully complete the Development and
Integrity course in two semesters, then the Associate Director authorizes the Registrar to change the
Incomplete to an XF. If the Violator successfully completes the Development and Integrity course,
then the Associate Director contacts the Faculty Reporter who then replaces the Incomplete with the
final grade earned in the course.
.
The Hearing Panel may deviate from the XF grade sanction and consider any of the following
sanctions for violations of the Honor Pledge:
7
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
•
•
•
•
•
A failing grade for the assignment in connection with which the violation of the Honor Pledge
occurred
A requirement to complete the Development and Integrity course prior to receiving a final
grade in the class in which the Honor Pledge violation occurred
Recommendation to the Provost that the student be suspended from the University
Recommendation to the Provost that the student be expelled from the University
Other appropriate educational sanction such as community service
In the event that an Honor Pledge Violation report cannot be resolved prior to the end of a semester,
the Faculty Reporter records an Incomplete until such time as the alleged violation is resolved. The
Honor System Director will make every effort to resolve these conflicts prior to the end of the semester
but does have the right to postpone the Investigation and Adjudication process during Intersessions and
summer semesters.
F.
Appeal of a Hearing Panel Decision
Appeals are to be based on procedural irregularities or substantial new information. Appeals based on
procedural irregularities must be presented in writing to the Director within 15 days of an Honor
Council Hearing Panel decision. Appeals based on substantial new information must be presented in
writing to the Director within one year from the date of an Honor Council Hearing Panel decision. The
Director determines whether an appeal based on substantial new information or procedural
irregularities might have impacted the investigation or adjudication procedure. Following this
determination, the Director may:
,
1.
2.
3.
4.
reconvene the Hearing Panel to hear new information, or
appoint a new Hearing Panel and conduct a new hearing, or
appoint new Case Investigators and a new Hearing Panel, or
take such other action as the Director feels appropriate.
The Director then notifies the Faculty Reporter and Alleged Violator in writing of the decision and the
process to be followed.
G.
Conflict of Interest
Members of the Honor Council involved in the investigation or adjudication procedures of a case will
immediately notify the Director of any conflicts of interest. The Director may remove an Honor
Council member from the investigation and adjudication process if sufficient information exists to
support a conflict of interest.
8